SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : a question for a Calvinist

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Ron,

Quote:
I know it but is any of the means my responsibility?



The Scriptures seem to indicate so. Even though it is the Lord's power that works this in believers, they are still commanded to repent and believe. The Puritans and other reformers seem to agree with this view also.

Quote:
I know that too, but the implications are not minor. If some were elected to salvation are some elected to perdition? I am utterly unable to believe in a God who would do this.



Some men were left in the wickedness of their sin, while some were graciously elected out of it. The only trouble I have regarding believing in this God, is that of believing his mercy can be so great as to choose [b]anyone[/b]. It seems to me that the mass of humanity is often characterized in some morally neutral fashion, which, as I'm sure you would agree, is not true.

Quote:
The 'church' is the total complement of those who have received God's pardon. It is not a fixed number of souls specified in some fictitious decree.



A clear reading of Ephesians 1 shows that it is a fixed number of persons, elected and predestined by the grace of God. Also, I'm not sure how else to interpret the words "ordained to eternal life" other than some are ordained to eternal life, which would obviously mean others are not ordained to eternal life, but justly left in their sin.

Grace to you,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/12/11 18:10Profile
boG
Member



Joined: 2008/5/21
Posts: 349
Las Vegas, NV

 Re: a question for a Calvinist

Interesting article on the Red Heifer philologos; I will have to browse through the rest of that thread.

I hope the following helps focus our discussion on this thread. As far as I am understanding the Calvinist doctrine of election, it focuses specifically on those who shall in very fact inherit eternal life. Then this view which is regarding "salvation to come" is retrospectively applied to the moment of "salvation by faith". And this is indeed a proper and true message of the gospel.

The Arminian doctrine (as far as I am understanding) focuses on the "salvation by faith" and then progresses (perserveres) unto "salvation to come". And those who perservere unto the end are the elect (this is the exact same teaching as the Calvinist but from the opposite perspective). However, from this perspective their arises the question of whether or not it is possible for one to begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh. That is to be cleansed from sins and then to return to the enslavement of former sins. To use that previous parable/metaphor, the dog consumed its own vomit (which previously had proceeded out of its bowels) and this may be taken as a representation of inward defilement; and the sow as an outward defilement. Either way it should be noticed that "It has happened to them (these false teachers) according to the true proverb". That is to say, they were not parabled as sows and dogs until after they had returned to their formers ways and not prior to this degeneracy. Again, this does not challenge the doctrine of election and predestination but is strictly a question of the doctrine of perserverance.

In my opinion Calvinism does not supply an adequate response for those who "return to their own vomit".

[b]2 Peter 2
20.[/b] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
[b]21.[/b] For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.


"For if, [b]after[/b] they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
This implies they have already escaped the defilements of the world (referring to the lusts of the flesh through which sin entered the world). And they had escaped through the knowledge of the gospel, which is the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as both Lord and Savior. This may very well mean that the dog vomitted up its bitter meal (purging its inward parts) and the sow was washed clean (cleansed from dead works), which is a parable of regeneration. Perhaps it might be of consideration to quote the following verses:

[b]Matthew 18
27.[/b] "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. . . .
[b]32.[/b] "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
[b]33.[/b] `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
[b]34.[/b] "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
[b]35.[/b] "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Is it possible then to be forgiven of one's debt of sin (which is death) and then to have that debt reinstated? Obviously this would disqualify them from being counted among the elect but does this necessitate that they were never truly forgiven by the King?

Now this brings us back to the question; the King indeed forgave the debtor the "unpayable debt" and yet we see that the King's forgiveness of transgressions did not have the proper effect upon the debtor's heart. Is this not comparable to the verse which reads, "even denying the Master who bought them"? So then, was the King's forgiveness of debt ineffective?

Is it possible that the King's forgiveness did not impute the debtor's justification and salvation?


_________________
Jordan

 2008/12/11 18:37Profile









 Re:

Quote:

boG wrote:
Interesting article on the Red Heifer philologos; I will have to browse through the rest of that thread.

I hope the following helps focus our discussion on this thread. As far as I am understanding the Calvinist doctrine of election, it focuses specifically on those who shall in very fact inherit eternal life. Then this view which is regarding "salvation to come" is retrospectively applied to the moment of "salvation by faith". And this is indeed a proper and true message of the gospel.

The Arminian doctrine (as far as I am understanding) focuses on the "salvation by faith" and then progresses (perserveres) unto "salvation to come". And those who perservere unto the end are the elect (this is the exact same teaching as the Calvinist but from the opposite perspective). However, from this perspective their arises the question of whether or not it is possible for one to begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh. That is to be cleansed from sins and then to return to the enslavement of former sins. To use that previous parable/metaphor, the dog consumed its own vomit (which previously had proceeded out of its bowels) and this may be taken as a representation of inward defilement; and the sow as an outward defilement. Either way it should be noticed that "It has happened to them (these false teachers) according to the true proverb". That is to say, they were not parabled as sows and dogs until after they had returned to their formers ways and not prior to this degeneracy. Again, this does not challenge the doctrine of election and predestination but is strictly a question of the doctrine of perserverance.

In my opinion Calvinism does not supply an adequate response for those who "return to their own vomit".

[b]2 Peter 2
20.[/b] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
[b]21.[/b] For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.


"For if, [b]after[/b] they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
This implies they have already escaped the defilements of the world (referring to the lusts of the flesh through which sin entered the world). And they had escaped through the knowledge of the gospel, which is the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as both Lord and Savior. This may very well mean that the dog vomitted up its bitter meal (purging its inward parts) and the sow was washed clean (cleansed from dead works), which is a parable of regeneration. Perhaps it might be of consideration to quote the following verses:

[b]Matthew 18
27.[/b] "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. . . .
[b]32.[/b] "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
[b]33.[/b] `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
[b]34.[/b] "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
[b]35.[/b] "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Is it possible then to be forgiven of one's debt of sin (which is death) and then to have that debt reinstated? Obviously this would disqualify them from being counted among the elect but does this necessitate that they were never truly forgiven by the King?

Now this brings us back to the question; the King indeed forgave the debtor the "unpayable debt" and yet we see that the King's forgiveness of transgressions did not have the proper effect upon the debtor's heart. Is this not comparable to the verse which reads, "even denying the Master who bought them"? So then, was the King's forgiveness of debt ineffective?

Is it possible that the King's forgiveness did not impute the debtor's justification and salvation?



It doesn't really matter about which end one is looking at it from, biblical salvation is defined by those who already have eternal/everlasting life. If one doesn't have something that is everlasting they should very seriously ask themself why. In most cases it is because they are trusting in the dedication towards God of their own wicked and deceitful heart. If I were to trust in that I wouldn't have any assurance of salvation either.
To deal with the dog and its own vomit, it's pretty straightforward. After his vomiting the dog is still a dog. Were the dog to be changed into a human he would no longer desire his own vomit. Likewise for the regenerate with the life of Christ imparted to them. When they have everlasting life, they no longer desire their own vomit. As dogs, only those who have stopped short of the saving change will have a desire to return to the vomit they have previously spewed out.

I know quite a few people that having heard of Christ and the Judgment to come have become very strict religious moralists, yet remain outside of Christ. The cults are filled with these examples. Many have left open profaneness to lead what are perceived as very upstanding religious lives, yet it is all but paint. Though their outward morality and profession be high, yet there is no change in their nature, they have been left as dogs, and often return to the vomit they had earlier left behind.


I believe Matthew 18 should be looked at through this lens:

In conjunction with Hebrews 12:5-11, we know that God chastises His children. All His children have experienced this upon being convicted of sin (whether unforgiveness or something else); the tormenters come, and come quickly robbing us of peace until we pay that which is due, a humbling of ourselves before God in repentance. As sons, this we owe God in our debt of gratitude as we represent Him in this fallen world, yet it does not affect our salvation. Not one of us has achieved sinless perfection, and God as our Father allows/sends these to bring us back into right relationship with Him, when we by our sin, have caused His withdrawal.

Old Joe

 2008/12/12 7:53
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Some men were left in the wickedness of their sin, while some were graciously elected out of it.


Is to choose some to one destiny not a choice of the remainder to another? If so this is reprobation whatever other name we choose to give to it.


Quote:
A clear reading of Ephesians 1 shows that it is a fixed number of persons, elected and predestined by the grace of God. Also, I'm not sure how else to interpret the words "ordained to eternal life" other than some are ordained to eternal life, which would obviously mean others are not ordained to eternal life, but justly left in their sin.


My 'clear reading of Ephesians' shows me no such thing. With Wesley, Campbell Morgan, A W Tozer and others I think of predestination more in terms of 'role' than future expectancy, although I came to my position long before i knew theirs.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/12 7:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Sure, EVERLASTING life begins at salvation and it doesn't end. That's the EVERLASTING nature of it. If not according to John 17:3 one doesn't even know God or Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and has no business preaching.



There is an 'edge' to some of your statements which is antagonistic; if it continues my contributions will not.

Many of the provisions of the Old Covenant were 'for ever'; the food of the priests, the fire on the altar, the burning of the lamps... but all those things which were 'for ever' ended because of a broken covenant.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/12 8:07Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

Quote:
My 'clear reading of Ephesians' shows me no such thing



Does it not always come down to this? What is clear to one is muddy to another. Someone earlier on this thread mentioned how we should just accept scripture for what it says, “If the barn is red…it is red” (paraphrase). The only problem is that not everyone sees it as red. What is plan and simple to one is a garbled mess and confusing to another.

This is not to you personally Ron, just putting it out there so to speak.

Grace and peace


_________________
TJ

 2008/12/12 8:16Profile









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
Sure, EVERLASTING life begins at salvation and it doesn't end. That's the EVERLASTING nature of it. If not according to John 17:3 one doesn't even know God or Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and has no business preaching.



There is an 'edge' to some of your statements which is antagonistic; if it continues my contributions will not.

Many of the provisions of the Old Covenant were 'for ever'; the food of the priests, the fire on the altar, the burning of the lamps... but all those things which were 'for ever' ended because of a broken covenant.



I do believe I have full right to be very forthright when someone tries to rob the sheep of assurance, especially when they claim to be a shepherd of those same sheep.

The things you mention didn't end, they were fulfilled "for ever" in Christ. Likewise, so is salvation.


Old Joe

 2008/12/12 8:46
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The things you mention didn't end, they were fulfilled "for ever" in Christ. Likewise, so is salvation.



Eternal life is qualitatively different not just longer. It is divine life and by grace we may become partakers of it. If we refuse to become partakers of it we shall lose it. Eternal life is not a lump of life but a stream which flows from the throne, if we abandon it we shall thirst... everlastingly.

This will be my last reply to your posts.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/12 9:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
This is not to you personally Ron, just putting it out there so to speak.


I agree with you.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/12 9:01Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I really am genuinely disappointed with Gill's and Piper's answers. I had looked for thoughtful explanations but what I feel I am reading is verses which have been put through the mincer of a Calvinist dogma. I genuinely cannot believe that anyone would have come to these reasonings without a prior commitment to mainstream Calvinism.



There is not a preacher, teacher, or participant on this site that does not read the scripture through some sort of lens. We all approach the scriptures with some system of theology in mind.

To deny this about ourselves is, at worst, lying or at best, personal ignorance.

That being said, I think, if you asked a Calvinist, they would tell you that they believe that Reformation Theology is most faithful in explaining Christ and His work. Which is why they hold to it.

Thanks,

Michael

 2008/12/12 14:45





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy